§  What's New  ||  Search   ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §

From: martinottmann@yahoo.com (Martin Ottmann)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Martin Ottmann -- Request for clarification of term
Date: 7 Nov 2003 15:19:23 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 133
Message-ID: <71d327bb.0311071519.4422a9a8@posting.google.com>
References: <3ps9qvkm8ou68e4lsotg3b5vd5re3ka3jm@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1068247163 23074 (7 Nov 2003 23:19:23 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 23:19:23 +0000 (UTC)
Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!quark.scn.rain.com!
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1655726

Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in
message news:<nathqv85nkgopsq5gbg3t5f94sdfskvtae@4ax.com>...

> >> So, Martin, I say that a person *can* serve Scientology's purposes
> >> without being employed by, under orders from or otherwise *officially*
> >> connected to the cult.
> >>
> >> You say that it is only possible for a person who is connected to
> >> Scientology and whose actions are part of a Scientology operation to
> >> serve the cult's purposes.
> >> Message-ID: <71d327bb.0310311502.438782a3@posting.google.com>
> >>
> >> You said that for "connection" you meant the manner or form in which
> >> you were *connected* to the cult prior to July 1992.
> >> Message-ID: <71d327bb.0310261359.44b0497@posting.google.com>
> >
> >I never said that. And I don't want to repeat myself a thousand times.
> >I simply gave you an example for my *own* connection.
> If you didn't mean that, then why provide it as an example of what you
> meant? Why provide an example of something you don't mean?

I feel like I am talking to a mentally handicapped person. I was
giving you an example of *my* connection to the Scientology
organization. Is that so difficult to comprehend? Do you know what
*my* means?

> >As I used Minton
> >as an example for someone who has been connected since March 2002, it
> >should have been obvious that I meant not only people who are official
> >members of the organization.
> Yes, but it is an irrelevancy. "Connection" no matter how you use it
> is unrelated to serving many of the purposes an organization may have.

It is relevant, unfortunately *you* are evidently not able to
understand concepts and reasoning outsaide of your sad little
Scientology-conspiracy world.

> >How about that: Knowingly participating in the activities of the
> >Scientology organization and its various suborganizations that are
> >covered by programs, orders, etc.
> You're doing the same thing. You're redefining a term from what it
> actually means. The term simply does not mean what you are redefining
> it to mean.

Oh, you are now the final authority in defining terms. This sounds
sooo familiar to me.

> It is obvious why you are doing this. If you didn't redefine the term,
> you would have to acknowledge that actions by people not knowingly
> participating in the activities of the Scientology organization and
> its various suborganizations that are covered by programs, orders,
> etc. *can* serve the cult's malevolent purposes.

> Surely you can see that your need to redefine the term with a false
> definition shows the fallaciousness of your argument and conclusion.

*False definition*! And you will tell the world what the correct
definitions are.

> >OK, I am waiting for your examples.
> I am waiting for you to stop pretending to be stupid by willfully
> redefining the term we're discussing so that examples are impossible.
> What you are doing is dishonest.

The only way I can be dishonest here, is being dishonest with myself,
because I am wasting my precious time with you.

> >> Thus it would be impossible for any example I can give you -- and I
> >> can give you many, indeed have given you many -- to be acceptable to
> >> you because you have redefined the concept so as to eliminate by
> >> definition all such examples.
> >
> >Name me just three.
> I already have. But I will do so again once you address honestly what
> the term "to serve someone's or something's or some organization's
> purposes" actually means.

You have nothing provided but shit examples from world war II, etc.

> >Using that logic you are bound to claim that the waitress in a
> >restaurant who serves Michael Rinder lunch while he has a business
> >meeting with some private investigators, is serving the organizations'
> >malevolent purposes.
> No, you are not using my logic. You are pretending to be stupid.
> >
> >You would also claim that the postman who is delivering the
> >Scientology mailings to private households is serving the
> >organization's purposes.
> Not exactly. But that is why there is a law prohibiting using the
> postal system for fraud.

What has that to do with anything? Just another opportunity for you to
add some lines.

> >
> >You would claim that the cow that is butchered and lands finally on
> >the plates of Sea Org personnel is serving the organization's
> >purposes.
> No I would not. A cow will serve the purpose of feeding people. The
> cow need not be a knowing participant in the group of people she's
> feeding. In fact, if the cow *is* a knowing participant she can't do
> much feeding. But feeding the troops is a not a malevolent purpose,
> and not relevant to this discussion.

Sure, a cow cannot serve Scientology, but a "building" can. In your
own words:

[...] You know that a lawyer can serve Scientology's purposes, without
a Scientologist in good standing, right? Did you realize too that a
law can serve Scientology's purposes? Did you realize that a building
can serve Scientology's purposes? Did you realize that the Internet
can serve Scientology's purposes? Well so can a.r.s. And so can posts
made to a.r.s. [...]

> >
> >You would claim that the air of Los Angeles that is keeping Michael
> >Rinder alive is serving the organization's purposes.
> I wouldn't pretend to be so stupid. I am not dealing on my website
> with the actions of the weather.

But it might be better for you if you would. You are either obsessed
with your own deranged theories that you cannot think straight or you
are completely stupid yourself.






§  What's New  ||  Search   ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §